Bonkers Blog July 2015

What would I do without loyal readers? Yesterday, short of time as ever, I
invited readers to play Spot the Difference between
the March and
May Splash Park reports.

When
Teresa O’Neill gets to know that the original report is now public alongside
councillor Craske’s version her face may once again look as it did whilst
listening to councillor Slaughter speaking about Old Farm Park. (See Photo, it’s
a new one.)

I heard councillor Sawyer say
in early May he had not seen the report, he was
waiting for council officers to ensure it would answer all his questions. I am
not at all sure that was the real reason and you may not either if you compare
the two now available.

• Fairly inconsequential is that one mentions the number of children using the
park, the later one doesn’t. Similarly one says no one knows the design capacity
of the park, the other says the numbers were well beyond design capacity.

• Getting more controversial, the original report covers the risk of human soiling
(nappies), the council version pulls Cryptosporidium out of the hat.

• Where the consultant’s report doesn’t mention maintenance as much as the
council would
like, the council makes sure it does.

• The real report refers to the poor workmanship of the replacement rubber surface
installed in 2012 under the Conservative administration. It is edited out of the
final version.

• The consultant says the filters may possibly be not very good at removing
Cryptosporidium and Bexley council step that up to claiming that even
replacement filters will not eradicate the problem introducing the word
Cryptosporidium twice where it wasn’t present before.

• The March report “understood” there was not a single case of a bad test result
being returned but Peter Crsake’s version on the web says “these results often
showed levels of bacteria in between cleaning regimes that gave rise to concerns
and prompted further investigation”.

• The original conclusion said nothing about further investigations being
necessary, the council version does. It also devotes a large section to
Cryptosporidium although the consultant had not seen fit to mention it at all.

• Where the consultant offers remedies the council drones on about breeding
grounds for bacteria.

• The consultant offers a solution but Bexley council prefers to say “human soiling
cannot be prevented”.

• The March report says that with attention to appropriate measures the park can
continue. The council’s report emphasises “maintenance on an ongoing basis”. It
also considerably beefs up the problems with a mains fed solution.

There is absolutely nothing in the report to suggest that council officers were
ensuring that any question councillor Sawyer might have asked would be answered,
it is perfectly obvious that they were enlarging the highlighted problems to
ensure Bexley council could claim the problems were largely insurmountable.

The original report mentioned Cryptosporidium four times and only as a
possibility, Bexley council mentions it twelve times and says that even improved
filters may not eradicate it.

It is not hard to conclude that Bexley council has embellished the report to
satisfy their own requirement and, put simply, they are crooks.

Here;
see what you think. Green text is comment by the BIB reader who prepared
the PDF comparison.